Assurances on inspections given on coal tip in Blaenau Gwent
Infrastructure services manager Kevin Kinsey explained the council's areas of responsibility as one of the authorities that is tasked to deal with flooding incidents.
Within the document disused coal tips are mentioned – this is because of the risk that their stability could 'fail' in periods of heavy rain.
This happened last November, when 40 homes had to be evacuated during Storm Bert as heavy rain caused a landslide from an old coal tip near Cwmtillery.
Mr Kinsey told councillors that there are 129 disused coal tips in Blaenau Gwent and the council 'owns and maintains' 53 of them, which includes the one in Cwmtillery.
Cllr Wayne Hodgins (Independent) wanted some clarification on coal tips.
'It's quite alarming that they are our responsibility,' said Cllr Hodgins.
Mr Kinsey explained that the council has an 'inspection regime' in place and maintenance work is funded by the Welsh Government.
Cllr Hodgins said: 'That does put a large strain on our resources, there may need to be a review of how we manage those tips with the limited resources we have in house.'
Mr Kinsey said that the Welsh Government had provided the coal tip safety grant to fund maintenance work in the aftermath of the Tylerstown coal tip landslide in 2020.
Mr Kinsey said: 'We've been able to undertake a lot of work, and we spent just under £2 million in tip maintenance across our tips plus private tips as well, if we feel it's justified.
'In terms of our physical resource it is very limited we are only a very small team.
'Be assured that these inspections are undertaken and where maintenance work that needs to be done it is undertaken.'
Cllr Sonia Behr (Labour) asked if private owners were charged for inspections and for work to be carried out on their disused tip?
Mr Kinsey said: 'We don't charge, it's Welsh Government funding.
'Under the coal tip maintenance programme, funding will be made available to private landowners that has to be directed or undertaken by the local authority.'
Councillors agreed the draft strategy which will go before a future meeting of the Labour Cabinet for a decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
7 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
A debate over withdrawing the legal protections established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, which shield veterans from being prosecuted for historic actions between 1969 and 2007 during Operation Banner, took place at Westminster Hall on Monday. MPs critical of the move suggested it would open a 'witch-hunt' against veterans who served to protect citizens across communities in Northern Ireland. The debate followed a public petition against repealing the legislation which attracted more than 170,000 signatures. Conservative MP John Lamont, who opened the parliamentary session, said the rollback could lead to 'two-tier' payouts for figures such as former Republican politician Gerry Adams. Mr Lamont said: '[The change] could result in a six-figure payout for Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was not considered by the secretary of state, but rather a junior minister. 'That is simply outrageous. 'We have seen a lot of examples of two-tier justice since the Labour government came to power, but this may simply be the worst of all. 'Is the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag northern Irish veterans through the courts, whilst potentially paying millions to terrorists? 'We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not. 'The Legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. 'Doing so is not sustainable – legally or morally.' Others echoed Mr Lamont's comments, highlighting the implications the rollback could have on the armed forces in future conflicts. Conservative MP Sir David Davis argued the change would mean that British soldiers would be abandoned by the country they served. He said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. 'The legal witch-hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It'll cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in, and undermine their abilities to defend us.' He added: 'Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans that are at risk today. 'So let us all make one promise, that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the nation they have so bravely protected.' Other MPs voiced their support in favour of the Government's proposals, arguing that the current act is not fit for purpose. Labour MP Louise Jones suggested that the lack of support for the legislation among victims, politicians across parties in Northern Ireland, and veterans themselves meant it ought to be repealed. She said: 'This Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel that were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles. 'It is not supported in its current form by victims, it's not supported by a Northern Irish party, and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced, and I call on the minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare of any conflict.' 'We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities not against them, and I hope everyone here will reflect on that important undertaking.' Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn pointed to statistics from the Centre for Military Justice that show that only one British soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. He suggested that this was the case over the 27 years, despite immunity for British military personnel not being enshrined in law for the majority of this time. Mr Benn also argued that the changes would allow incomplete investigations into the deaths of soldiers to reopen. He said: 'Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. 'And that is why we need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel, who served so bravely. 'There are more than 200 families of UK military personnel who are still searching for answers 30, 40, 50 years ago about the murder of their loved ones. 'The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently confirmed they had 202 live investigations into Troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 23 into the killings of veterans. 'Each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the Legacy Act, and we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. 'The other challenge is the lack of confidence in the act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, which we are going to seek to reform. 'We owe it to all these families.'
The Sun
11 minutes ago
- The Sun
If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid
WHAT on Earth was Labour expecting? Coming to power last year, it awarded junior doctors a 22 per cent pay rise. 3 3 And simultaneously abolished legislation brought in by the Conservatives to make it harder for public sector unions to hold the country to ransom. Twelve months later and the British Medical Association has come back for more. This time it is demanding an even bigger, 29 per cent rise for junior doctors (who now like to be called "resident doctors" to disguise the fact they are still in training). The union has announced a five-day strike if it doesn't get what it wants. Health Secretary Wes Streeting seems to be taken aback, along with the rest of the Government, but he shouldn't be. It was obvious that by caving into the BMA last year, he would embolden it. Under the new rules, the BMA does not need a majority of its members to vote in favour of strike action, and neither does it have to worry about the now-repealed law brought in by the Conservatives which guaranteed minimum service levels on strike days. Something, however, has changed since last year to thwart the BMA's ambitions. It has suffered a collapse in public support. Prior to last year's pay award, a majority of the public appeared to support junior doctors' strikes. Junior Doctors Announce Five-Day Strike in July Amid Ongoing Pay Dispute Now, according to a YouGov poll, only 33 per cent support strike action, and 49 per cent oppose it. The BMA seems to think that doctors hold such an esteemed position in the minds of the UK public that it can get away with anything. Perhaps it remembers all the clapping on the doorsteps during the Covid pandemic and thinks that people will forever after react in the same way, even when they are having appointments and operations cancelled due to a five-day strike. But it is sadly mistaken. We all, rightly, applaud doctors for what they do, especially when they go out of their way to help us. But there are limits. Last year's pay rise for junior doctors was way above that offered to any other group of workers. So, too, is the 5.4 per cent rise which junior doctors have been awarded this year. To come back and ask for an even bigger rise, and expect the public to nod in support, shows a detachment from reality. People are not stupid. They can see the Government is deep in debt, and that Britain is heading for fiscal disaster if the Government continues to spend more than it earns in revenue. They can see, too, that the BMA's claim junior doctors need a 29 per cent rise to restore their earnings to 2008 levels is spurious to say the least. It is based on calculations using the Retail Prices Index, a long-discredited measure of inflation which tends to run well ahead of the official index now used for almost everything, the Consumer Prices Index. There are plenty of workers whose pay has fallen back in real terms over the past decade and a half, and for good reason. 3 Britain has been struggling to achieve any meaningful economic growth. Productivity is static, and in the public services has fallen lower than it was in 1997 when Tony Blair came to power. The Government had an opportunity to link last year's pay award to improved working practices, with the aim of improving lamentable NHS productivity, but chose not to do so. The public can also see doctors have a generous pension scheme, with taxpayers contributing an extra 23.7 per cent of doctors' pay in the form of pension contributions. When doctors retire, they will enjoy guaranteed, index-linked payouts. Few, if any, private sector workers enjoy pensions which are anything like as generous. Index-linked payouts Streeting has at least acknowledged the generosity of doctors' pensions, suggesting he might be prepared to offer pay rises in return for lower pension entitlements. As for the claim junior doctors were being paid less per hour than baristas in high street coffee shops, even the BMA has given up on that propaganda. Actually, with overtime payments, some of the junior doctors going on strike could be earning in excess of £100,000 a year. It is important to remember, however, that not all junior, or 'resident', doctors support these strikes. Only 55 per cent of BMA members actually voted in the ballot. Moreover, not all junior doctors are members of the BMA. Of the 77,000 working in the NHS the BMA claims 48,000. Many doctors have been horrified by the prospect of more strikes, with Lord Darzi and Lord Winston both condemning them in recent days. It even led to Lord Winston's resignation from the BMA. Doctors are being badly served by the BMA, which is really just a trade union like any other. Many may at present be pleased with last year's pay award, but the BMA is taking them down a blind alley of militant unionism which is unlikely to end well. What has always marked out the medical profession is very high levels of public support.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Lifting amnesty for Troubles veterans ‘will lead to witch hunt'
Lifting the legal immunity for Troubles veterans will lead to a 'witch hunt' of servicemen involved in future conflicts, Sir David Davis has warned. The 2023 Legacy Act put an end to fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, as well as civil actions. It created the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which would review deaths and serious injuries that occurred during the conflict. However, Labour pledged in its manifesto to scrap the legislation, which it said was unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups as well as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir David, a senior Tory MP, said that allowing inquests to restart would cause concern among soldiers as it would set a precedent for servicemen facing legal action. Speaking at a debate in Westminster on Monday, the former minister said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice, the legal witch hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It will cast a shadow over every future conflict that our Armed Forces engage in and undermine their abilities to defend us'. He added: 'Our soldiers have been held to the highest standards of law and yet our Government is rewarding this by effectively threatening them in their retirement. That is not a proper reflection of their human rights'. Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, said that to repeal the Act to allow fresh inquests would be 'not just morally but operationally mad'. He told MPs: 'It would be an act of sheer folly and indeed aid to our enemies to continue with this act of military self-harm so that to put it bluntly even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave.' All three Armed Forces branches are struggling to maintain their numbers, with more than 14,500 service members leaving in 2024 while only 12,850 new recruits joined. Mr Francois added: 'This government-sanctioned form of lawfare is self-evidently a case of two-tier justice at its worst and that is why on these benches we are utterly against it.' One of the most controversial elements of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw paramilitary prisoners released from jail as part of securing an end to the conflict. Sarah Pochin, the Reform UK MP for Runcorn and Helsby, said: 'These courageous men should be enjoying their hard-earned retirement, not facing prosecution for defending the British people from IRA terrorists.' Ms Pochin, whose father served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, added: 'The same British people who value these soldiers are outraged at the unfair and unjust action of this British Government.' Meanwhile unionist MPs warned that reversing the law could lead to prosecutions being used to relitigate the conflict. Gavin Robinson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: 'Our responsibility as parliamentarians from across the United Kingdom is to say no, we will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA's pursuit to try and attain some sort of honour toward their retirement. 'They tried to destroy this country through war and they failed. Let's not create the conditions for them to try and destroy the reputation of this country through peace.' Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, insisted that the Legacy Act must be repealed but said that all MPs were in agreement that 'there can be no rewriting of history'. He told MPs: 'We can't have any more false promises or undeliverable pledges, pledges that our courts have found to be unlawful. 'And that is why we will fix the mess we inherited from the previous government, whatever its intentions were, and we will protect our veterans as we do so.' Mr Benn admitted that 'legacy is hard' to get right, adding: 'This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement and that is why, as well as listening carefully to veterans which we are doing, we also need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British personnel who served so bravely.'
